Oped revision

The author is advocating for the importance of adopting a public healthcare system in the

United States. The opening paragraph begins the discussion of the importance of public

healthcare in America, but is too vague. It doesn’t mention a policy, but rather the general

opinions of the author. The writing may be stronger if opinions such as “Most private healthcare

systems are less concerned with the health of the community...” were made later in the article,

directly next to evidence that supports this claim.The author writes “The government should thus

consider ​putting together…policies...” however such it is better to make a definitive statement,

so the word “consider” should be eliminated. The last sentence is unnecessary, as the purpose of

the Op-Ed is to prove a point, or justify the importance of a policy.

There are many compelling ideas introduced, but the article lacks sufficient evidence to

support these ideas. The author mentions the “vast number” of uninsured Americans, but gives

no concrete numbers or evidence to back this claim. Similarly, the author mentions “the rate [of

uninsured Americans] has decreased,” but gives no evidence of this decline. The author is

advocating for universal healthcare, so if this statement is true, it would refute their argument.

The author mentions Medicare and Medicaid, which are a part of the “status-quo” as they

have been a part of the American healthcare system for decades. Based on the writing, it can be

assumed that the author wants to model the public healthcare system off of these existing

policies, but this is never said. The author explains the importance of these systems well, but the

distinction between them could be made clearer. The author says that Medicaid “covers families

that have low incomes and individuals in society with disabilities” and that Medicare “...is a

federal government health insurance program that subsidizes the cost of healthcare.” However,

Medicaid provides insurance for ​low-income ​individuals, while Medicare provides assistance for

those who are ​65+​ and those ​under 65 with disabilities​. The author mentions a study by Guth,

Farfield, and Rudowitz and says that it “shows that the effects of Medicaid expansion in the

United States are positive.” However, the author never explains the study or what the positive

effects are.

The author then proceeds to explain part of the private healthcare industry. It is not

necessary to say that “ private healthcare systems do not make efforts to support public

healthcare...” as that is the nature of the relationship between the two. However, it would be

useful to expand on the information that the author then lays out concerning the “high

administrative costs” of private healthcare. This is good evidence, but could be made stronger by

comparing the costs of the U.S. healthcare versus countries that have a universal healthcare

system.

In the closing paragraph, the author says that “Creating public healthcare systems is a

way that the government can help revive the healthcare ​industry​...” The use of the word ​industry

seems to be a misuse, as public healthcare seeks to replace the current ​healthcare industry​. The

article closes with the author saying that the government “has to ensure constant monitoring” of

the public healthcare system, as it is the only way to “benefit from pros” of it. This should be

mentioned earlier in the article. The closing point should only reinforce the necessity of the

suggested policy.

Overall, the author has set up some strong arguments, but does not include evidence to

support these claims. The article does not give any specifics of how the public healthcare system

will be set up or how it will be funded. There is no substantial social science evidence given for

the claims the author makes. Lastly, the author does not pay sufficient attention to how this

system will differentiate from the private health care system, or the “status-quo.”